This letter represents the core of our mission.

It formally presents new and credible medical evidence establishing the lawful basis for the Government of Canada to reopen its investigation into Morgellons disease.

Rather than relying on protest or persuasion, this approach is grounded in documented evidence, statutory authority, and established public health obligations. It marks the first public step in a structured and lawful process aimed at securing recognition, accountability, and an appropriate public health response.

The following letter was sent by the Founder of Morgellons United to the Conservative Party of Canada’s Shadow Minister of Health, Dan Mazier, requesting formal review and onward transmission to the Federal Minister of Health.

Full Letter

LETTER TO THE SHADOW MINISTER OF HEALTH

Subject: Request for Formal Review of PHAC ATIP Disclosures, 2009 Ministerial Position, and Materially Evolved Scientific Evidence Regarding Morgellons Disease

To:
The Honourable Dan Mazier, M.P.
Shadow Minister of Health
Conservative Party of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Canada

Dear Shadow Minister Mazier,

I am the founder of Morgellons United, an organization focused on government policy reform, public health accountability, and the advancement of evidence-based institutional recognition of Morgellons disease in Canada. Thank you for your office’s willingness to engage with this matter.

I write to present a structured request for formal review of the Government of Canada’s historical and current position regarding Morgellons disease in light of newly consolidated evidence and disclosed internal documentation.

This submission is grounded in:

• The August 10, 2009 letter issued by the Office of the Minister of Health;
• Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) records released under the Access to Information Act (A-2021-000659);
• Updated peer-reviewed scientific literature published since 2009;
• 2025 research from the Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences addressing methodological limitations of the CDC’s 2012 investigation.

The issue presented is whether PHAC’s continued disengagement remains administratively defensible under Canadian standards of reasonableness and good faith public health governance given the materially evolved evidentiary record, and whether that posture warrants formal ministerial reconsideration.

I. The Government’s 2009 Position Was Explicitly Conditional

In its August 10, 2009 correspondence, the Office of the Minister of Health stated that public health and clinical information regarding Morgellons disease was “extremely limited at this time.” The letter further indicated that PHAC was monitoring occurrences and keeping current on research.

Two elements are critical:

• The phrase “at this time” confirms the position was contingent upon available evidence.
• The government represented that monitoring and research tracking were occurring.

This was not a final determination. It was an expressly conditional administrative posture grounded in evidentiary limitation.

Where a prior governmental assessment was expressly contingent upon limited evidence, the emergence of credible new evidence re-engages the duty to review.

II. ATIP Disclosures Confirm Institutional Disengagement

PHAC’s ATIP-released records confirm:

• “PHAC is not formally tracking the incidence of this condition.” (ATIP Release A-2021-000659, p. 8)
• “The Public Health Agency of Canada is not planning any studies or activities related to this unexplained condition.” (ATIP Release A-2021-000659, pp. 3, 15)

The ATIP file further contains internal “Talking Points (Can Be Shared Externally)” confirming that PHAC and its partners “do not know the cause of Morgellons disease” and that PHAC is not planning further investigative activity (ATIP Release A-2021-000659, p. 15).

Additionally, the materials confirm:

• Morgellons is not reportable in Canada;
• No formal disease code has been assigned;
• No statistical tracking exists.

An agency cannot reasonably rely on the absence of statistical evidence where it has formally declined to collect it.

The 2009 representation of monitoring must now be reconciled with confirmed non-tracking and discontinued investigative posture.

Where new evidence is presented and not evaluated, inaction becomes an affirmative administrative choice rather than passive continuity, and therefore requires reasoned justification.

III. The CDC 2012 Study Has Been Methodologically Challenged

PHAC’s historical reliance has remained anchored to the CDC’s 2012 investigation.

However, independent academic research from the Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences (2025) explicitly identifies methodological limitations in the CDC study, including the absence of fiber-positive case requirements and the use of a cohort that did not require the defining clinical marker of the condition.

In contrast, the OSU research applied defined clinical criteria requiring the presence of multicoloured fibers embedded in or projecting from epithelial tissue, accompanied by molecular analysis.

The identification of objective biological markers materially alters the historical basis upon which psychiatric explanations were previously relied upon and warrants contemporary scientific reassessment.

Continued institutional reliance on a study whose case definition did not require the defining clinical marker cannot reasonably support policy finality — including the discontinuation of investigation and the decision not to track incidence — when subsequent research applies stricter, biologically anchored criteria.

IV. Material Scientific Evolution Since 2009

Since the 2009 Ministerial letter:

• Objective biological markers have been documented in peer-reviewed literature;
• DNA sequencing methodologies have been applied to Morgellons tissue samples;
• Pathogen DNA has been identified under controlled laboratory conditions;
• Methodological critiques of earlier research have been addressed through stricter case definitions and sequencing validation.

The scientific record has evolved from earlier psychiatric characterizations to biologically anchored molecular investigation.

Whether these findings ultimately establish causality is not the present question.

The question is whether continued non-investigation remains reasonable given:

• Defined case criteria requiring the presence of multicoloured dermal fibers composed of human structural proteins, including keratin and collagen;
• Reproducible laboratory techniques, including histological and molecular analysis;
• Independent academic critique of the CDC’s 2012 methodology;
• Confirmed institutional non-tracking and discontinuation of investigative activity in Canada;
• Fifteen years of additional peer-reviewed scientific development documenting objective biological findings.

V. Administrative Implications

Taken together:

• The 2009 federal position was expressly conditional;
• PHAC is not formally tracking incidence in Canada;
• PHAC is not planning further investigative activity;
• The CDC methodological framework relied upon has been formally critiqued;
• The scientific record has materially evolved;
• PHAC continues to receive documented public inquiries.

The status quo is no longer neutral.

It constitutes an administrative position maintained without contemporary evidentiary reassessment, with consequential implications for public health oversight and institutional accountability.

Under established principles of Canadian administrative law, decision-makers must revisit prior positions when the factual record materially changes.

VI. Request for Structured Action

I respectfully request that you:

• Review the August 10, 2009 Ministerial correspondence;
• Review PHAC’s ATIP-disclosed records;
• Review the peer-reviewed scientific evidence summary (morgellonsunited.com/research);
• Review the 2025 Oklahoma State University research presentation;
• Consider forwarding the enclosed draft correspondence to the Federal Minister of Health requesting formal reassessment.

The requested outcome is specific:

A renewed review grounded in current scientific methodology, accompanied by a reasoned written determination indicating whether PHAC will:

• Reopen investigation;
• Initiate incidence tracking; or
• Provide a reasoned refusal.

VII. Closing

This matter presents a discrete and reviewable governance question spanning 2009–2025.

The evidentiary record has materially evolved. The administrative posture has remained unchanged.

Any reassessment does not presume outcome. It ensures alignment between institutional position and the current scientific record.

I respectfully request written confirmation that this submission has been received and is under active consideration.

Respectfully,

Lance Tycholaz
Founder, Morgellons United

Attachments

• August 10, 2009 Minister of Health Letter
• PHAC ATIP Release Package (A-2021-000659)
• Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences – 2025 Research Presentation
• Peer-Reviewed Scientific Evidence Summary (morgellonsunited.com/research)
• Draft Letter to the Federal Minister of Health

Legal References (Contextual Framework)

Department of Health Act, R.S.C. 1996, c. 8
Canada Health Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-6
Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) — Article 2
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

These references are provided for contextual completeness and do not alter the procedural nature of the request.

Public Update Notice

We will provide updates regarding any official response from the Public Health Agency of Canada or other authorities following the submission of this letter. Please check our website and social media periodically for the latest developments.